播放地址
提示：如无法播放请看其他线路
剧照
剧情介绍
长篇影评
1 ) 看了快一百遍的片子了
从1998年，到现在，快25年了
这么多年里，不知道看了多少遍
翻来覆去的看
我也不知道这部片子到底有何魔力
卡司阵容，极其精良；选角精湛。首先启用屈伏塔，本身就非常大胆，歌舞片出身的演员，几乎没有正剧；赫布（《神探阿蒙》）、梅西（《无耻家庭》）那个时候还都是三线，尚未绽放光芒。
光线，打光，太漂亮了！
节奏、剪辑切换；转场、配乐....所有一切，几乎都是妙到毫巅
2 ) Some Instructions before Watching
The movie tells the story of pollution in a small town in Massachusetts. In this town young children get sick and die of cancer. The mothers and fathers think that maybe they are dying because a factory’s polluting the water in the town. A young lawyer (played by the actor John Travolta) becomes the lawyer for the families.
The lawyer brings a lawsuit to ask a U.S. court to order that companies that were responsible for the pollution stop the pollution and pay the families damages. The kind of lawsuit is called a “toxic tort” lawsuit—because the plaintiffs say that they were harmed (tort) by poisonous chemicals (you du de).
There are many interesting and important things that we can learn about and discuss from the movie. These things include:
(1) Career Model: “Plaintiffs” John Travolta is a “plaintiffs lawyer.” He represents people who do not have the money to pay for lawyers. He spends his own (and his small law firm’s) money to do the work. In exchange he hopes to get paid well if the lawsuit is won.
In watching the movie, think about: (1) why is John Travolta being a plaintiffs lawyer (to become rich or famous, to help people, both?) (2) what strategy do the lawyers for the defendant companies use to oppose John Travolta? (3) what are the moral issues John Travolta has when the lawsuit becomes very expensive and John Travolta’s law firm has little money left?
(2) Tool: Discovery.
As we have discussed, one of the most important and special features in American law is “discovery.” The American rules of civil procedure (Federal and state) provide that before the parties go to trial, they should be able to get all the information they need about the case. In many cases, including probably the most complicated civil cases , the parties do not go to trial—they settle the case after they take discovery and find out how strong (or weak) their case is, and how strong (or weak) the case for the other side is.
Basically, in discovery, a party can get information from the other side in three ways:
a) Deposition. In a deposition a party gets to ask questions of people. The people can be the defendant (including officials of a company or of the government, if the defendant is company or government) or a “third party.” The testimony is like court testimony—the witness has to tell the truth, and a record is kept. But there is no judge or jury present.
Depositions can be very very useful and powerful. The court can order that even the most important people (government or companies) have to make themselves available for deposition. (As you may recall, when he was being sued by a woman, President Bill Clinton had to testify at a deposition). In depositions about environmental pollution by a company, a plaintiff’s lawyer can find out things that the government (or the newspapers or public) do not know.
b) Documents. In addition to asking questions of witnesses, parties conduct “documentary” discovery. They can ask the other side (or a third party, though court approval may be needed)) for documents that may be related to the case. (Today, of course, documents include emails and other “e-documents.”)
c) “Interrogatories.” Finally, in discovery parties can ask each other to answer—in writing-written questions.
In the movie we will see how depositions work. You will see how John Travolta tries to get information from the company witnesses, and how the company lawyers try to depose the families of the children who died. This is an example of the way it really is.
(3) Tool: Expert witnesses.
The families live near polluted water. The children die. The families and John Travolta have a simple argument-- the companies polluted the water, the children drank the water, the children died.
The companies have lots of money for lawyers and experts. They argue that it is much more complicated. The companies did not pollute the water. If they polluted the water, the children did not get sick and die from the water –the children had many other reasons to get sick.
(4) Strategy. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but the movie—again based on a true story—shows that in real life sometimes things work out differently than what lawyers plan for.
(5) Settlement and settlement strategy. As the Movie explains, most cases do not go trial—but are settled before the judge or jury has to decide. In many cases this is because in discovery the parties can learn about each other’s case, and see how strong or weak the cases are. A good part of the movie is about the way in which both sides go about trying to settle the case. Watch carefully
(6) Lawyer personalities. A great part of the movie is watching the differences between the key lawyers-“Jan,” “Mr. Cheeseman” and Mr. Facher. In America lawyers have many different styles. Watch these different styles-see what you like and what you don’t. Is what you like most effective-or maybe what you don’t like?
(7) Moral Questions
The movie presents very good examples of moral questions. They include:
~~What kind of methods can or should lawyers who oppose “public interest” lawyers use?
~~What should a “public interest” lawyer do when his/her interest in survival (having enough money) comes in conflict with client interest?
~~What should public interest lawyers and clients do when the defendant offers to settle the case—and the settlement may help lawyer or client, but maybe not the larger public interest.
3 ) Before the Claim
The Aberjona River was actually well known to have been contaminated since the mid to late 1800s, well into the 1980s with many tanneries and chemical plants. Even in the late 1890's reports from the State Board of Health documented death from cholera and typhoid from drinking water supplies contaminated with wastes from the tanneries. Hard to believe that the town used well water from near that river. The wells were closed, but after children died, and before the lawsuit.
This film is essentially about Massachusetts pre-trial procedure. To my knowledge some American professors have built the whole dispute resolution course on the legal manoeuvrings of this case.
About Causation
The essential substantive problem with this case is causation. The rule for causation is that, a plaintiff cannot succeed unless she shows as a matter of fact that she would not have suffered the loss “but for” the negligent act or acts of the defendant.It's much more difficult than it seems to be because the test is not always about facts and the court is not always doing what it claims to do.
If taking together, plural defendants past the “but for” test and caused the accident, but the plaintiff is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or “but for” cause of her injury, then a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant’s conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff’s injury. But the concept of material contribution is not illustrated clearly. In this case exists an indivisible liability that causes leukaemia.
About Role Morality
I've wondered for long whether should counsel’s own moral perspective impact on the professional decision-making. If the answer is yes, how can an individual’s operative moral perspective be articulated to another person, especially in the context of a relationship founded on the pursuit of that other person’s, which is the client’s objectives?
It’s part of a counsel’s job to consider the options available, research the law and advise the client of the feasibility of their claim and the chance of success. The significance of being a counsel is to commit yourself to facilitate your client, take the client’s instructions and to resolve client’s disputes with honest and full competence. But sometimes reflecting on my factum from the perspective of an outsider I sensed subtle moral condemnation for myself. Do I believe my arguments without any shadow of doubt? Did I go in for rhetoric, make conceptual shifts and manipulate the law for the benefit of my client? Am I misrepresenting the facts, misleading the court and acting in contravention of the rules of professional conduct?
We turn the messy facts of human interaction into legal terms and shape the way disputes are understood and portrayed. Disputes are social constructs with various complexity. We have chosen to reduce and translate such constructs into pure legal disputes without any moral consideration.
There's a famous line in this film: "Whoever comes to their senses first, loses." Mr. Facher is an old, smart, vicious and most importantly, an experienced lawyer. His first reaction to the poor families' testimony is "They can never testify", because he knows the narratives would move the jury so deeply that they would be determined to allocate the loss on the big companies.
We seldom consider these questions in law school. Althoughstudents may believe that they should achieve something greater than enrolling in a law school to solve other people’s legal problems for pay, they are often immersed in semester-long focus on regulatory standards of conductand heavy academic pressure. Students are also hoping to advance or even incarnate certain ideals of political and social justice, or todevote themselves to a career that will lead to systemic change, but the training mode of amoral legal technician would only cultivate legal professionals without personal-professional integration like productions from an assembly line.
About Damages
In assessing damages to plaintiff who suffers personal injury, the important principle is putting the injured plaintiff in the position he would have been in if he had not sustained the injury.
The features of the common law of damages for personal injury, particularly the calculation framework, is a reflection of the choices we, as a society, have made. The framework mainly includes two main categories: pecuniary loss (mainly includes future health care and loss of earning) and non-pecuniary lose. We have chosen to reduce and translate living plaintiffs into assets with a price tag. The result is we know the price of everyone and the value of no one.
4 ) 法律职业伦理课作业（剧情简介和归纳）
帮助各位法学生应付期末考试或课堂作业，我总结一下这部电影，帮大家节约看电影的时间。可以复制下来打印出来看（开卷考试的话）。——来源Chatgpt
1.a civil action 讲了个怎样的故事
电影《A Civil Action》是一部1998年上映的美国法律剧情片，由史蒂文·扎里安执导，约翰·特拉沃尔塔、罗伯特·杜瓦尔和托尼·沃尔夫主演。
该片讲述了一位名叫詹尼·罗斯（约翰·特拉沃尔塔饰）的个体律师代表一群波士顿河边居民对化学公司W.R.格蕾斯的民事诉讼的故事。这些居民相信W.R.格蕾斯公司排放的化学物质导致了他们的家庭成员生病或死亡。詹尼·罗斯在为这些居民寻求赔偿的过程中，发现这起案件的背后涉及到更加深入的阴谋和腐败，他必须决定是否要放弃这场战斗或者继续努力为这些居民争取到公正的赔偿。
该电影以真实事件为背景，揭示了当时美国法律和政治环境中的弊端和问题，呼吁观众关注环境污染和公民权利的重要性。
2.上面提到的，深入了怎样的阴谋和腐败
在《A Civil Action》中，随着案件的深入，詹尼·罗斯发现W.R.格蕾斯公司的行为和波士顿地方政府和法院的协作有着深入的关联。
首先，W.R.格蕾斯公司被指控在其位于瓦布恩的工厂中，排放致癌物质三氯乙烯，导致附近的波士顿河边居民生病或死亡。然而，公司通过向政府机构和当地官员提供巨额资金，掩盖了这种污染并阻止了任何调查或制裁。
其次，当居民组成了一个集体诉讼，向公司索赔时，他们发现法院的审判过程也受到了污染。法院的裁决受到了当地政治和商业势力的干预，导致居民的诉讼案件无法得到公正的处理。
最后，当詹尼·罗斯继续努力追查案件的真相时，他发现这种腐败和阴谋可能还涉及到更高级别的联邦政府和监管机构，他必须决定是否要放弃这场战斗或者继续努力为这些居民争取到公正的赔偿。
3.结局
电影《A Civil Action》的结局十分现实和沉重。
虽然詹尼·罗斯和居民们最终成功证明了W.R.格蕾斯公司的污染行为，但是他们最终没有获得公正的赔偿。在审判过程中，居民们因为证据不足而失败了，而詹尼·罗斯也因为该案件的高成本而失去了事务所。电影最后显示，该工厂最终被关闭，但是居民们并没有获得他们应有的赔偿和正义。
这个结局反映了现实生活中很多同样的环境诉讼案件，即使胜诉，受害者也难以获得足够的赔偿或正义。这种现象促使公众反思环境污染和法律制度的缺陷，并促进对环保和公民权利的更大关注。
4.这个电影对于法学生有什么学习意义
电影《A Civil Action》对于法学生有很多学习意义，尤其是那些学习环境法或民事诉讼等相关领域的学生：
- 案例分析：电影基于真实事件改编，讲述了一个环境法和民事诉讼案件的过程，可以让法学生学习如何进行案例分析和法律研究。
- 法律职业道德：电影中，主角詹尼·罗斯面临了很多职业道德方面的抉择。这可以帮助法学生了解律师应如何处理类似情况，并了解法律职业道德的标准和责任。
- 司法独立：电影中，主角和居民们面临了政治和商业势力的阻碍，这让法学生更好地理解司法独立和法院中立的重要性。
- 环境法：电影中，主角和居民们追求的是因环境污染所致的损害赔偿。这可以让法学生了解环境法和环境污染的概念，以及环境诉讼的实践。
- 法律改革：电影中，通过居民们的追求正义和主角的努力，公众对环境污染和法律制度的问题得到了更多的关注，这有助于法学生思考如何通过法律改革来解决社会问题。
总之，电影《A Civil Action》为法学生提供了一个生动的案例，可以帮助他们理解法律实践中的伦理和
5.法律职业道德层面上，这个电影告诉了我们什么
以下是电影中呈现的一些法律职业道德方面的教训：
- 忠实于客户：律师的首要职责是代表客户的利益，并保护客户的权利。在电影中，詹尼·罗斯始终坚持为居民们争取权益，尽管这场官司可能导致他的事务所破产。
- 尊重法律：律师应该尊重法律和法院的权威，并保持诚实、公正和道德的行为。在电影中，詹尼·罗斯在审判过程中受到法院的批评，因为他过于依赖感性证据，并试图绕过法律程序。
- 避免利益冲突：律师应该避免与客户利益相冲突的情况，并在必要时将客户的利益置于个人利益之上。在电影中，詹尼·罗斯最初接受了W.R.格蕾斯公司的案子，但当他发现自己需要对抗这家公司时，他决定代表受害居民。
- 保持机密性：律师应该保守客户的机密信息，并遵守律师-客户特权原则。在电影中，詹尼·罗斯面临一些抉择，比如是否将案件细节公开，以便获得更多的公众支持。
总之，电影《A Civil Action》强调了律师职业道德的重要性，尤其是在复杂的案件和艰难的情境中。律师应该始终坚守道德底线，保护客户利益，并促进公正和公正的司法程序。
5 ) 请不要轻易错过这样的电影
因为理工科属性在骨子里，在首次观看后，我没法放弃用一二三四来阐述自己
1. 看这部电影之前，个人已经有幸看过十二怒汉，造雨人，都是关于法律，正义，和自身的信仰。A civil action，剧情没有那么多跌宕起伏，结尾也并没有大快人心，恰如我们身边的这种压抑氛围。去看这部冗长电影，也要直面眼前的沉痛与黑暗
2. 很多人玩麻将，片中的打官司让我浮想联翩，律师们在围绕当事人的痛苦和烦恼中，相互博弈，他们有技巧，有胆魄，虚张声势，步步紧逼。博得更多的赔偿与降低到最少的付出，双方都是胜利。法院此时就像极了一个棋牌室，代表的不是公平与正义，只是提供博弈与协商的庄家
3. 整部戏有很多场景，一方提出一个数字，几个零，一方摇头或点头。个人的立场随时随地都可以因此瓦解，何况是众叛亲离之时与穷图陌路的那一刻。主角在最后一场谈判里，心中可以接受的和解赔偿是对方永远不可能给出的，我觉得他不是在看到河水被污染时醒悟的，也不是想起那个家庭在去诊所的路中丧失孩子的时候醒悟的，他去谈判后被合伙人一通指责，随后挂起了执照，收拾了名片。他知道之所以他可以接受的赔偿对方不可能支付，是因为他心里已经确认，痛苦不可能是金钱能够安抚的。所以在最后，只有14美元在身，依旧坦然
4. 孩子的弥足珍贵，这是一个家庭的最宝贵财产，环境的肆意破坏，这是所有人类的损失。看着窗户外的一片灰蒙蒙，出了小区路口的幽绿色河水，相比于一份工作，个人的财产，业绩的刷新，国家的富足，到底孰轻孰重？我想请我们可爱的执政团队，不要把这么称重的问题抛给我，抛给一伙人，一个什么机构，更不要为了维护自己那点可怜的利益无视它。做一些什么吧，制定一些什么吧。二十年后的蓝天与绿水，不会为你们立碑颂扬，但足可以洗刷这之前的所有屈辱
5. 算教育类别的影片了吧，下一代都看看吧，不能改变什么，不过等他们长大了，或许会做出一些特别的事呢，绝不对现实报以绝望。
末尾了，影片可观赏性没有那么高，放在这个时代，满分并不算高
6 ) 法庭永远和真相无关
看完以后，一边感慨，一边也在警醒自己。很多人在接触法律的时候，都心怀远大理想，可法律实际上呢，真和医生，技工一样只是掌握技术的专业人才而已，把律师来当做救世主，很多时候也许是不行。但是作为民众，作为观众，当然还是希望正义得到伸张。看电影的时候看到许多非常警醒的话，想来编剧竟然如此厉害，最后发现原来也是由原著改编。也许看完原著，会有更深的体会吧。
导演真不愧为辛德勒名单的编剧，本片果然又讲述了一个重度拜金背景氛围下的个人道德觉醒境界升华的故事。而有趣的是，好像剧中所有主要角色都不同程度地“鄙视了金钱”？男主人公和只求道歉不屑赔偿的原告女教师自不必说，就连被告方面的格瑞斯老板都禁止在俱乐部谈交易、杜瓦尔的老律师也总拎着个破旧手提包并坚持每天个人独处时段不该被业务打扰！……三星半。
法庭上找真相是不可能的，律师应该如何做，是该寻求调解或伸张正义。很多时候遇到的难题是无法用法律战胜，但是有坚持正确的信念，就是在前进【原著 a civil action法学院必读【美剧熟脸酱油时代
人生大抵如此，穷途末路，峰回路转，永远不能放弃！这个国度每天都演绎着资产阶级自由化带来的神奇！
人道主义代表。超现实主义。唯一有用的是never go to trial
源于真实案例，企业环境污染致使居民区数名孩子死于血癌。年轻有为的律师开始是看到了背后巨大的利益，耗费无数经费精力却失去名利地位一无所有。但他却在这个过程中看清了法律的价值，人性情感的真义。八年抗战，终于胜利。
7/10。英雄律师与委托人的主旋律题材，但导演没有把影片当成美国梦赞颂，尽力还原繁杂的询访证人和审前会议等过程，这在快节奏、娱乐性的好莱坞十分反常。另一方面叙事手段过于正统，倾向于法学教育片，观众最关心的是无人温暖心胸、没钱没房的主角怎么活下来，可这部分篇幅处理得很轻，缺少胜利氛围。
本片获第71届奥斯卡最佳男配角和摄影提名。本片的实际内容似乎不是影片标题所想表示的，也不是影片简介所提到的那样。而是表明一种工作的态度。骄奢必败。谦逊、内敛，锋芒不露才能胜利。自信一旦过了头就会令人反感。一个律师，在法官，陪审团面前骄横什么？这样做失败的只能是自己。
已经屡次在电影中看见它们的身影了，在美国的社会中扮演着举足轻重的角色
John为何有这种魔力?总觉得他每部片子完全都不用出力就能让人喜欢
开头二十分钟以为又是美国“样板”法庭戏，律师为小人物对抗大公司，确实是，但又不全是，也讲律所为取证到处借钱的狼狈辛酸，讲法庭辩论的技巧，也讲抗争的失败，个人的落魄，挺好。
#美领馆电影之夜#apology is more important than money？Justice？enh.
一看开头就想到大嘴罗伯茨的那个类似的电影 米国的律师真是无所不能啊。。
衡量一个人的生活的标准是什么？从b站弹幕来看，看完这部电影，很多人也完全搞不明白
开头像被强磁铁吸住，随后叙事就像带观众在竹篮里顺河水漂流，满屏金句。能看John演戏真是好。净资产14美元和收音机1台的“黄金单身汉”。当然！
很人性、很感人~ 至于我想象中的激情辩论可惜没有出现~ 胖子演技还真不赖啊~
NB的人都有股子执着劲儿，最后从业10几年，口袋里只剩14美元，众叛亲离，这TM是一种什么情怀啊，太大无畏了。法庭到底是伸张正义的地方还是调和的地方，这是个好问题。
99年的片子…………屈哥哥我来迟了
故事拍得比例不对。。所以显得冗长且头重脚轻
难得屈伏塔没演反派，应该很合他心意。
lf you should fall asleep at the counsel table, the first thing you say when you wake up should be Objection.